It took all of 20 days, but I begrudgingly have come around to it. There, are you happy, Flavio?
Regarding the whole TestaRossa brouhaha, my issue is not that it doesn't resemble a 1980's TR. A modern Ferrari can crib details here and there from their past, but it ought to be its own thing. No, my issue is that the TestaRossa that is a storied name from the 1960's and became iconic with its reintroduction of 1980's. The latter TR was so iconic that I'd wager a there's a whole generation of enthusiasts where that was one of the most, if not the most, wall-postered car. I know I definitely count myself as one.
So for it to be reintroduced for a third time, that's a nomenclature that ought to be applied to something that is very much worthy of the cachet that comes with it. I watched the Shmee video up till the 8'30" mark (I no longer have the patience to sit through a video.) Per Shmee, he said that Manzoni thought when ever "TestaRossa" is applied, it's essentially starting a new epoch for Ferrari, but is that really what's going on? From a mechanical perspective, it was ituse revolutionary when a hybridized Ferrari was introduced, and the Enzo did that in 2013 and did it again with the SF90. And then again with the 296. So there's not much of revolution in that aspect with 849, especially since it's based on the SF90's bones. Regarding the design, Ferrari's Nuovo Classe (that's my term since I am ripping off BMW's new design directive) was introduced on their decade-defining supercar, the F80. It was then seen again on 12 Cilindri and Amalfi.
So, with all that said, I think Manzoni's argument for calling a TestaRossa just falls flat. To me, it seems like a craven attempt to cash-in on nostalgia so they can sell a new cover on a revamped SF90. And while I will freely admit that I am a cynical S.O.B., I can't also deny what is pretty obvious too.